Sigh. I’m getting really tired of posting on Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez continued attacks on freedom of speech. It’s not that I don’t think censorship is an important issue. It’s just that he does it so damn much.
Today’s low blow? Spanish singer (and winner of 14 latin grammys) Alejandro Sanz will not be allowed to perform his scheduled Nov. 1st gig at the state-owned Poliedro stadium in Caracas. His crime? Why, he criticized the beloved leader! Three years ago.
Sanz must have laid on the vitriol to get banned from performing in public buildings. Here’s his stinging polemic:
“I don’t like your president.”
Subversion! Insurgency! These five words clearly jeopardize the very future of Venezuela’s socialist revolution!
Or not.
What are you afraid of, Hugo? Is a pop singer so dangerous to your regime? I know latin rhythms always make me want to overthrow the government.
The Chavez supporters who periodically visit my site and accuse me of being in the thrall of some American-led anti-populist conspiracy will no doubt point out that Sanz will still be allowed to perform in private venues in Venezuela. Whatever. Chavez has shown time and time again that he will accept no criticism of his policies or behaviour. And if it is in his power to do so, he will shut that criticism down. That ain’t democracy, folks. Sorry to burst your balloon.
First of all, I find your title is misleading. Chavez is not censoring a concert, but banning it (from the government owned and funded stadium) which is not the same thing: the singer is free to sing wherever he likes, but not in the government funded Poliedro stadium.
In fact, this singer can sing anywhere he likes outside the stadium, no questions asked.
Isn’t it about time you learned what the difference is between democracy and freedom of speech? They are far from the same. Even the most democratic country applies some form of censorship. No Casino for the Swedes, so what?
And that’s right, NO Casino, nowhere in Sweden. Now did you attack the Swedes for not allowing this movie onto the Swedish movie market? And did you call the country undemocratic for censoring I don’t think so.
Maybe try wikipedia, since your education didn’t seem to help.
Why don’t you stay with the facts and do you need to put some kind of slant on all the Chavez stories? What’s your problem?
The BBC and the Independent got their title right, why can’t you?
I tried to head this off in my post proper, but you seem oblivious to subtle hints.
I’ll take this point by point:
1) Democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech-to express you opinion and receive information. That’s a basic truth, born out by both theory and the democratic states that exist around the world.
2) Yes, there are limits on all freedoms, usually when the exercise of one’s freedom damages another member of the polity. That’s why we limit hate speech, because it negatively affects the ability of others to exercise their own democratic rights.
3) I think the Swedish case is an inappropriate. And you’re misinformed. The movie wasn’t banned, it was edited. Scorcese didn’t like that, so he pulled his film. And it was edited for violent content, not for subversive political content. My problem with Chavez is that he uses his authority to quash legitimate criticism of his rule and policies. That’s not democratic. I don’t agree with Sweden’s censorship policies, but I think it’s pretty apparent that we’re dealing with distinct phenomena.
Oh, and I didn’t criticize Sweden in my post because I was writing about Venezuela, not doing an omnibus collection of every instance of censorship in the world. Duh.
4) Yes, I am smarter than you.
5) I do use the facts, facts as reported by major news sources. I put a ‘slant’ on them because this is my blog and it reflects my opinion. And my problem is that I don’t like dictators.
You know, Saxboy, I’m starting to wonder if you actually are Hugo Chavez. Either that, or you have a big crush on him. Either way, more power to you. Chase that rainbow.
Oh, and I also enjoyed how you linked to my own comment where I mention my education. Were you trying to remind me? Listen, I know I have two Master’s degrees. I was there.
Point by point it is then:
1)I have no idea what kind of point you’re trying to make, but in case you didn’t know yet, Chavez was democratically chosen, and the banning of a concert is maybe a freedom of speech issue, but it’s NOT censorship. Time to change the title of your post, Nunc.
2)Well put; bravo
3)That’s complete BS, and you know it. If a movie cannot be shown without being censored (because that’s what the editing is about), then we ARE talking about censorship. I realize fully well that there are different kinds of censorship but that’s a different topic altogether. And I could just as well have picked The Netherlands for their laws against insulting their Queen Beatrix; since we’re talking monarchy here I don’t think we can get any more political. And what do you have to say about the Netherlands, the no. 3 on the Democracy Index; that’a not a democracy either?
4)What does that have to do with it?
5)what a joke your blog is then. The fact is, Chavez is not a dictator, he is a democratically chosen leader.
The Swedes DID censor; the movie in it’s original version is illegal in Sweden. But Chavez didn’t censor; the artist who wants to insult the head of another state has the freedom to go where he likes and sing where he likes; just not in the particular stadium.
Just for your information, I don’t think it’s the right decision Chavez has made. I too think that in this case he’s abusing his powers for political reasons. But why anyone would feel the need to misinform his readership with misleading titles ( he did not censor, he banned a concert) and data (the movie Casino, in it’s original version IS censored, regardless of if the censored version is accepted by Scorcese or not) is beyond me.
If you look up ‘censorship’ in the dictionary, and I assume you haven’t, it will usually say something about suppressing any form of communication (book, movie, website, whatever) deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. So by banning a concert, Chavez is suppressing a musical performance (already scheduled) on political grounds, and therefore censoring it.
As for Chavez being a dictator: if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. And history is full of dictators achieving power through ostensibly democratic means. You’ve probably heard of this one: the National Socialists, Germany, 1932. Fellow by the name of Hitler.
You’ve misunderstood me (again) about Casino. The censored version could be viewed in Sweden until Scorcese pulled it. You claimed the Swedish government blocked it outright, which is incorrect.
To sum up: my title is not misleading and neither is my information. And I think it is entirely appropriate that my blog represents my opinion. I think Chavez behaves like a dictator. You’re frenzied cries of ‘he was elected! he was elected!’ don’t hold much water here.
Oh, and if my blog is such a joke, I find it fascinating that you apparently visit it every day and find time to write long, typo-infused invective against my posts. I take it back: you don’t have a crush on Chavez. You have a crush on my blog.
For the record, I’m keeping score and it’s definitely 2-0 for Nunc Scio on this post.
censorship, freedom of speech, or let’s move on with life:
Here’s a little test then:
So I wrote this (hypothetical) book, in which I describe that the Holocaust has never happened, I know, not a popular topic these days, but it works well in this thought exercise. I wanted to have it published but, since it might be hard to find someone willing to take it on, I’ve left the idea on the shelf for a while.
Then the other day I see an add in the paper: Wanna publish your book? – 500 copies for $5000. So I call the number, and ask him what the conditions are. The guy says that there aren’t really any conditions; just pay the $5000 and I’ll print the 500 books and make sure it’s available in a dozen local bookstores.
So I send him the book. Guess what? He calls me as soon as he got the book and wonders if I’m out of my mind? No-one would ever want to publish a Holocaust-denial book, and especially not him; he’s Jewish.
By your analogy the Jew is censoring my book, right?
Chavez the dictator, just like Hitler.
You really need to come up with some examples, Nunc. Saying that someone is a dictator, and making comparisons to Hitler, but failing to supply any facts really doesn’t do it for me. It’s interesting that you compare a left-wing social-democrat (Chavez) with a right-wing corporatist (Hitler): Now, (by the way, for the first time,) I’m seriously starting to doubt if you really did do your masters.
Casino
No, you’ve misunderstood me. The fact that it had to be censored first BEFORE it could be viewed in Sweden, that’s the censorship right there. You’ve also neglected to consider the “political” example I gave you: by your standards The Netherlands is not a democratic country, just like Venezuela, right? It’s in the Beatrix’s power to shut criticism down, so she’s a dictator too?
Democracy
Well, first of all, he was elected. That’s how democracy works, didn’t you learn that in school? Or was there no “water”? Furthermore, if you want to label someone as a ‘dictator’, you better come up with some proof. A mere frenzied cry “he censors a singer, he censors a singer” doesn’t hold much water here.
I love you
You don’t have a crush on Chavez. You have a crush on my blog.
No, no, no, not on your Chavez, not on your blog, it really is all about you, you didn’t know that? I really love people who turn rational thinking into a game of who smarter, or people who think life is score card. I love them all. Oh, and it’s very entertaining too.
*Yaaaawn*
Well, at least you’re being honest with yourself. Now you can put your sordid feelings behind you.
I won’t bother with the bulk of you arguments, since I’ve made my points and I’m not interested in going in endless circles with you. But I will say that I didn’t compare Chavez to Hitler. I simply used the Nazis as an example of a fascist dictatorship who gained power through democratic means. This refutes your rather facile argument that anyone who is simply ‘elected’ must be a democrat.
I’m afraid I don’t know the game of ‘who smarter’ [sic]. But despite that notable handicap, I can’t help but think I’m waaaay ahead.
Best. Comments. Ever. This just passed a lot of time at work and my heart is racing. I am just glad that you’re posting all this Graeme. I think it’s really honest and valiant of you. You would make a very good journalist.
“The censored version could be viewed in Sweden until Scorcese pulled it.” so the censored version was available and therefore there was no censorship…even though it was censored. Well thats really something.